Does Apico-Coronal Implant Position Influence Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Loss? A 36-Month Follow-Up Randomized Clinical Trial

Clinical and radiographic results of crestal vs. subcrestal placement of implants in posterior areas: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the peri-implant soft tissue and marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants with platform-switching and internal conical connection placed at crestal and subcrestal levels in posterior areas.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nineteen partially edentulous patients with at least two adjacent missing teeth in posterior areas unilaterally or bilaterally were included. Forty-two implants were placed randomly at the crestal or subcrestal (1 mm) level in a split-mouth design. Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with screw retention were delivered after 4 months of healing. Clinical and radiological measurements were performed at implant placement (T0), restoration delivery (T1), and 1-year follow-up after loading (T2). MBL was calculated as the change in distance from the implant-abutment interface to the first radiographically visible bone-implant contact. A repeated-measures mixed ANOVA followed by a paired Student's t-test with the Bonferroni correction was used for statistical analysis. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients with thirty-eight implants completed the study at T2. The MBL was lower in the subcrestal group than in the crestal group (0.04 ± 0.08 vs. 0.17 ± 0.17 mm, p = 0.004). The peri-implant probing depth (PD) was 2.31 ± 0.48 mm in the subcrestal group and 1.92 ± 0.43 mm in the crestal group; this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002). Intragroup comparison showed no significant differences in MBL, or PD around the crestal group and subcrestal group from T1 to T2.

CONCLUSION

After 1 year of functional loading, subcrestal placement of implants with platform-switching and internal conical connection showed lower MBL and was associated with greater PD and peri-implant soft tissue height than implants placed at the crestal level.

Analysis of Peri-Implant Bone Loss with a Convergent Transmucosal Morphology: Retrospective Clinical Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the peri-implant bone loss of infracrestal, supracrestal, and crestal implants from the day of placement and up to 1 year of prosthetic loading.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective clinical study was carried out. The sample consisted of 30 implants placed on 30 patients. It was divided into three groups: infracrestal (n = 10), crestal (n = 10), and supracrestal (n = 10) implants.

RESULTS

Following the statistical analysis, it was observed that, 4 months after implant placement, the mean values of total peri-implant bone loss were 0.04 mm in infracrestal implants, 0.26 mm in crestal implants, and 0.19 mm in supracrestal implants. At the end of one year of prosthetic loading, the peri-implant bone loss was 0.12 mm in infracrestal implants, 1.04 mm in crestal implants, and 0.27 mm in supracrestal implants. It was determined that peri-implant bone loss in crestal implants was significantly higher than in supracrestal implants, and these in turn were significantly higher than in infracrestal implants.

CONCLUSIONS

The implants that obtained a better biological behavior on peri-implant bone tissue were the infracrestal implants with a converging transmucosal abutment.

Immediately loaded implants simultaneously placed in fresh extraction and healed sites supporting four-implant-supported fixed mandibular prostheses using the all-on-4 concept: A 5-year prospective study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the peri-implant marginal bone level for immediately loaded implants placed simultaneously in both fresh extraction sites (FES) and healed sites (HS) supporting a 4-implant supported mandibular fixed prosthesis (4-ISFMP) using the all-on-4 concept.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A 5-year prospective study was conducted in 24 patients (96 implants) treated with 4-ISFMP including 55 implants inserted in FES and 41 implants in HS. At implant placement (baseline) and at the 1^st -, 3^rd - and 5^th -year follow-up examinations, peri-implant marginal bone level was evaluated radiographically and compared between placement in FES and HS. Marginal bone loss was calculated as the difference in the marginal bone level evaluated at the follow-up periods. Additionally, implant and prosthesis survival rates as well as the presence of peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing+[BOP]) and peri-implantitis (BOP+ >2 mm MBL) were evaluated.

RESULTS

22/24 patients with 88/96 implants (dropout rate: 8.3%) were continually followed for 5 years (survival rate: 100%). Radiographically measured marginal bone level differed significantly between FES and HS at implant placement (1.46 ± 0.80 mm vs. 0.60 ± 0.70 mm; p < .001), at the 1-year (-0.04 ± 0.14 mm vs. -0.18 ± 0.20 mm; p = .002) and 3-year (-0.26 ± 0.49 mm vs. -0.58 ± 0.48 mm, p = .049), but not at the 5-year evaluation (-0.90 ± 0.66 mm vs. -1.00 ± 0.59 mm, p = .361). The marginal bone loss differed significantly (p < .001) between FES and HS between implant placement and the 1-year evaluation but not for the 1- to 3-year (p > .99) and the 3- to 5-year period (p = .082). At the 5-year follow-up evaluation, no implant/prosthesis failed (100% survival) and peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were noted in 41.2% and 11.7% at patient level and in 17.6% and 4.5% at implant level respectively.

CONCLUSION

Implants placed in FES showed a prolonged peri-implant remodelling process but provided for similar peri-implant marginal bone levels as implants placed in HS at the 5-year evaluation for immediately loaded 4-ISFMP.

Clinical comparison between crestal and subcrestal dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

How the performance of dental implants is related to their occlusogingival placement, crestal or subcrestal, is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate marginal bone loss, implant survival rate, and peri-implant soft tissue parameters between implants placed at the crestal and subcrestal bone level.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials published up to September 2020. The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and the inverse variance methods (α=.05).

RESULTS

The search identified 928 references, and 10 studies met the eligibility criteria. A total of 393 participants received 709 implants, 351 at crestal bone levels and 358 at subcrestal bone levels. Meta-analysis indicated that crestal bone level implants showed similar marginal bone loss to that seen with subcrestal bone level implants (mm) (P=.79), independent of the subcrestal level (P=.05) and healing protocol (P=.24). The bone level implant placement did not affect the implant survival rate (P=.76), keratinized tissue (mm) (P=.91), probing depth (mm) (P=.70), or plaque index (%) (P=.92).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that both approaches of implant placement are clinically acceptable in terms of peri-implant tissue parameters and implant-supported restoration survival.

Factors Affecting Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Loss of Implants Placed by Post-Graduate Students: A 1-Year Prospective Cohort Study

Statement of the problem: Most of the clinical documentation of implant success and survival published in the literature have been issued by either experienced teams from university settings involving strict patient selection criteria or from seasoned private practitioners. By contrast, studies focusing on implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students are scarce. Purpose: To record failure rates and identify the contributing factors to implant failure and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students at the one-year follow-up. Material and Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on study participants scheduled for implant therapy at the International University of Catalonia. An experienced mentor determined the treatment plan in accordance with the need of each participant who signed an informed consent. All surgeries and prosthetic rehabilitation were performed by the post-graduate students. Implant failure rate, contributors to implant failure, and MBL were investigated among 24 variables related to patient health, local site, and implant and prosthetic characteristics. The risk of implant failure was analyzed with a simple binary logistic regression model with generalized equation equations (GEE) models, obtaining unadjusted odds ratios (OR). The relationship between MBL and the other independent variables was studied by simple linear regression estimated with GEE models and the Wald chi² test. Results: One hundred and thirty dental implants have been placed and rehabilitated by post-graduate students. Five implants failed before loading and none after restoration delivery; survival and success rates were 96.15% and 94.62%, respectively. None of the investigated variables significantly affected the implant survival rate. At the one-year follow-up, the mean (SD) MBL was 0.53 (0.39) mm. The following independent variables significantly affected the MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement. The width of keratinized tissue (KT) and probing depth (PD) above 3 mm were found to be good indicators of MBL, with each additional mm of probing depth resulting in 0.11 mm more MBL. Conclusion: The survival and success rates of dental implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students at the one-year follow-up were high. No contributing factor was identified regarding implant failure. However, several factors significantly affected MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement, PD, and width of KT. Clinical Implications: Survival and success rates of dental implants placed and rehabilitated by inexperienced post-graduate students were high at the one-year follow-up, similar to experienced practitioners. No contributing factors were identified regarding implant failure; however, several factors significantly affected MBL: Diabetes, implant depth placement, PD, and KM.

Radiological implications of crestal and subcrestal implant placement in posterior areas. A cone-beam computed tomography study

Background

Subcrestal implant placement has been suggested as a method that could contribute to maintain the periimplant soft and hard tissues in comparison with crestal placement. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between implant placement at different depths in the alveolar bone and (a) the thickness of the buccal bone plate (BBP); and (b) crestal cortical bone thickness, based on the use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Material and Methods

A cross-sectional study was performed, analyzing CBCT scans from the database of the Oral Surgery Unit of the University of Valencia. Individuals with single missing teeth in posterior sectors were included. Two trained dentists used a software application to plan implant placement at four different depths from the bone crest (from 0-2 mm subcrestal). The thickness of the BBP was measured at each established depth, tracing a line from the implant platform to the outermost part of the facial alveolar bone, and the ratio between the implant platform and cortical bone thickness was calculated.

Results

The study sample consisted of 64 patients. In the case of implants placed in a crestal position, the distance from the platform to the BBP was 1.99±1.10 mm. This distance increased significantly (p<0.001) with the planned implant placement depth, reaching an average of 2.90±1.22 mm when placement was 2 mm subcrestal. Subcrestal implant placement at this depth implied surpassing the cortical bone in 91% of the cases.

Conclusions

Radiological planning of implant placement in a subcrestal position results in a greater distance from the implant platform to the BBP. In general terms, planning implant placement at a depth of 2 mm subcrestal surpassed the cortical bone in 91% of the cases.

Key words:Subcrestal implant, cortical bone thickness, buccal bone plate, cone-beam computed tomography.

Longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter implants supporting single crowns: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To compare the longevity and marginal bone loss of narrow-diameter (≤3.3-mm) versus standard-diameter implants supporting single crowns.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and SciELO databases were searched for relevant publications. In addition, the scientific references provided by each of the implant companies that appeared in the search were reviewed. Intervention studies comparing longevity and bone loss between narrow-diameter and standard-diameter implants were included.

RESULTS

The search was limited to in vivo studies in humans. The query returned 1931 results, of which 4 met the inclusion criteria. The implant success rate ranged from 93.8% to 100% over a maximum follow-up of 3 years, with no difference between narrow- and standard-diameter implants. Meta-analysis of all included studies showed greater bone loss in narrow-diameter implants as compared with standard ones; however, when analysis was restricted to randomized trials, no such difference was present.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis showed no difference in longevity between narrow implants and standard implants when supporting single crowns. However, narrow-diameter implants may be associated with greater marginal bone loss. These findings should be regarded cautiously due to the short follow-up duration and methodological heterogeneity of the primary studies.

Can the Macrogeometry of Dental Implants Influence Guided Bone Regeneration in Buccal Bone Defects? Histomorphometric and Biomechanical Analysis in Beagle Dogs

The aim of this experimental animal study was to assess guided bone regeneration (GBR) and implant stability (ISQ) around two dental implants with different macrogeometries. Forty eight dental implants were placed within six Beagle dogs. The implants were divided into two groups (n = 24 per group): G1 group implants presented semi-conical macrogeometry, a low apical self-tapping portion, and an external hexagonal connection (whereby the cervical portion was bigger than the implant body). G2 group implants presented parallel walls macrogeometry, a strong apical self-tapping portion, and an external hexagonal connection (with the cervical portion parallel to the implant body). Buccal (mouth-related) defects of 2 mm (c2 condition) and 5 mm (c3 condition) were created. For the control condition with no defect (c1), implants were installed at crestal bone level. Eight implants in each group were installed under each condition. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured immediately after implant placement, and on the day of sacrifice (3 months after the implant placement). Histological and histomorphometric procedures and analysis were performed to assess all samples, measuring crestal bone loss (CBL) and bone-to-implant contact (BIC). The data obtained were compared with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. The ISQ results showed a similar evolution between the groups at the two evaluation times, although higher values were found in the G1 group under all conditions. Within the limitations of this animal study, it may be concluded that implant macrogeometry is an important factor influencing guided bone regeneration in buccal defects. Group G1 showed better buccal bone regeneration (CBL) and BIC % at 3 months follow up, also parallel collar design can stimulate bone regeneration more than divergent collar design implants. The apical portion of the implant, with a stronger self-tapping feature, may provide better initial stability, even in the presence of a bone defect in the buccal area.